Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 6, 2008 12:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

BD: Thanks for your able participation. Besides you and WT, I wish I could say the same for others. Pretty disappointing, but I guess this really isn't the venue. I should have known better.

Anyway, here's what spawned my interest, it's a little rambling but seems fairly plausible. Like most, the theory is readily grasped, the effects and unintended consequences a little hazy;

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Nov 6, 2008 5:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Political Challenge, Sorry.

>>>Anyway, here's what spawned my interest, it's a little rambling but seems fairly plausible. Like most, the theory is readily grasped, the effects and unintended consequences a little hazy;
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491>;>>

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

While I'm always glad to read about Kahneman and Tversky and heirs, and I agreed with the last paragraph, but I think it was the "theory" that was hazy and the smaller points readily grasped.

For example, "A refusal to accept that individual freedoms sometimes have to be curtailed for the general good is an extreme position even for a neoclassical economist to take, and it is alien to the traditions of the Democratic Party."

That's downright silly. Just look at the split between Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith. Which one was allied with Democrats, and what's the difference between "libertarian paternalism" and market socialism?

Even then while Friedman claimed government intervention is uneconomic, the Chicago School was busy organizing military dictatorships or running the IMF, and always involved with massive government spending, and almost always borrowed money with abandon despite lip service to inflation.

In other words, most economist claim the wonders of the market but always turn to the government to help their favored industries. For now they're back to the drawing board and spinning wheels into grants -- and they've got little to say about our future investments being swallowed whole by crooks and the gullible.

So what's the point about the phony old labels of the economists of the elite?